Why not also make this for BTC?

[Transisto]

There's also double spend attempts on BTC.

I guess it'd be a more involved process since RBF have to be ignored.

[dgenr8]

Random thought ... I wonder if the recent confirmed double spend on BTC was RBF. Seems likely.

[Transisto]

What are you talking about? RBF are legitimate change to the mempool, not considered double spends.

…

On Tue., Jan. 28, 2020, 18:46 Tom Harding, ***@***.***> wrote: Random thought ... I wonder if the recent confirmed double spend on BTC was RBF. Seems likely. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#9?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAC643DCR5CZ6LPSBILG4T3RAC7WPA5CNFSM4KM2UUO2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEKFOETY#issuecomment-579527247>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC643BO3Y6R3DJSRGOXYQLRAC7WPANCNFSM4KM2UUOQ> .

[dgenr8]

It's just sort of interesting how one version was confirmed, then after a reorg a different one was.

[Transisto]

Still have no idea what you're talking about, maybe share a link to an explanation or something.

[Transisto]

Got it, https://bitcoinist.com/rare-bitcoin-stale-block-event-sees-3-double-spend/

[dagurval]

While it would be interesting,

• Double spends on BTC are not relayed and I would need custom software that connects to lots of nodes to to semi-reliably detect them.
• BTC community does not care about 0-conf or doubly spends, so supporting BTC adds no value
• On a personal level, I use my free time to maintain and develop the site, at the expense of other volunteer or paid work that I value more

[Transisto]

From a game theory standpoint miners running scorched earth policy have an incentive to both keep their high fee transactions for themselves and to seek as many customer as possible via public outreach. The business I work for is processing relatively large BTC transactions with zero conf, so yes we do care. Your answer helped me improve our risk model. Thank a lot.

…

On Wed., Jan. 29, 2020, 09:07 dagurval, ***@***.***> wrote: While it would be interesting, - Double spends on BTC are not relayed and I would need custom software that connects to lots of nodes to to semi-reliably detect them. - BTC community does not care about 0-conf or doubly spends, so supporting BTC adds no value - On a personal level, I use my free time to maintain and develop the site, at the expense of other volunteer or paid work that I value more — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#9?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAC643HVDGWI6GFO6Y5FE73RAGESNA5CNFSM4KM2UUO2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEKHJUTI#issuecomment-579770957>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC643AAAEMKYRINFXIVF5DRAGESNANCNFSM4KM2UUOQ> .

[dagurval]

The business I work for is processing relatively large BTC transactions with zero conf, so yes we do care.

That is very interesting. I too do care, which is part of the reason stopped working on BTC.

The BCH community has done extensive research into how to improve double spends, including holding a dedicated conference to brainstorm ideas.

If your interested, you can see the talks from this conference here (the videos with the blue "satoshis vision" logo):

Also @dgenr8 has put a lot of though and work into improving double spend reliability, and at one time had double spend relaying and wallet warning merged into Bitcoin Core. Even though he comes of snarky about RBF, he's actually a nice guy :-).

Bitcoin Cash is moving away from double spend relaying to double spend proofs. It would still be interesting to me as well to have an open source tool that connects to large amount of nodes on the network to detect them.

[dagurval]

I'd love to hear your ideas about mitigating risk @Transisto